ham, Dellinger, Earle, Ecker, Galloway,
Greene, Hebb, Henkle, Hoffman, Hopper,
Jones of Somerset, Kennard, Marbury, Mc-
Comas, Mullikin, Negley, Parker, Peter,
Pugh, Russell, Sands, Schley, Smith of Dor-
chester, Stirling, Stockbridge, Thomas,
Thruston, Todd, Wooden— 38.
So the motion to lay on the table was
agreed to,
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. BELT. Would it be in order for me to
make a personal explanation at this time ?
The PRESIDENT. It is in order.
Mr. BELT. My attention has been called to
an editorial article in the Baltimore Clipper
of this morning, in which lam credited with
the authorship of a proposition which was
offered here by the gentleman from Wash-
ington county (Mr. Negley) upon the sub-
ject of the basis of representation. The
writer of this article evidently felt that he
was in a bad dilemma, as between his evi-
dent approbation of the order which he as-
cribes to me, and his equally strong disin-
clination to give any credit to myself or any
one from my part of the State to offer any-
thing deserving commendation. And while
he clearly endorses the principle embodied in
the order which he attributes to me, he is
equally clear in his disapprobation generally
of myself. I read from the editorial :
"The resolution offered by Mr. Belt was in
these terms:
"That the true theory of representation in
popular governments is that of representation
according to population, except in such cases
where a portion of the population is denied
the exercise of the right of suffrage, in which
case representation ought to be according to
population endowed with the elective fran-
chise."
That was the proposition of the gentleman
from Washington county (Mr. Negley.) I
wish to take this opportunity of removing
any misapprehension that may exist, by
stating that so long as I preserve my facul-
ties, I do not think I shall ever endorse the
principles for which I have received credit in
this morning's paper.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE moved that the order of
the day be taken up.
The PRESIDENT. The other business before
the Convention having been disposed of, the
order of the day comes up without any motion.
The Convention then resumed the consider-
ation of the special order, being the report
of the Committee on the Declaration of Rights,
which was on its second reading.
The pending question was on the amend-
ment submitted by Mr. Jones, of Somerset,
to the 1st article, as follows :
Add at the end the following: " but this
right ought only to be exercised in the mode
previously agreed upon and prescribed by the
people whenever a mode of alteration or |
amendment of their form of government has
been previously agreed upon and prescribed
by the people in their written Constitution."
Mr.DANIEL. I had not intended to say a
word upon this subject, nor do I now intend
to occupy more than a few minutes of the
time of the Convention, I do not rise to dis-
cuss at all the questions adverted to in the
debate of yesterday. I shall not controvert
the position of the right of the people by revolution,
whether commenced by the people
or ratified by them, to change their organic
law. Still I can see the propriety of some
way being indicated in the Constitution by
which it may be changed or altered. I dis-
agree entirely, however, with gentlemen who
contend that this is the proper place lo insert
such a provision. I think the article is best
as it now stands. It is the assertion of an
abstract principle, the assertion of a great
truth—and my objection to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Somerset (Mr.
Jones) is that all amendments or provisions
which seek to add to or take from ibis article
detracts from its force and power. And at
the proper time I shall move to strike out the
last article in this bill of rights as reported
by the committee. Indeed, I had understood
from the report that i: had been stricken out.
But I shall go for inserting in the Constitu-
tion, in the proper place, as is in the Consti-
tution we now have, a provision indicating
the way in which this Constitution shall be
altered or amended. But think this article
as it stands is sufficient for all purpose's here.
As I have already said, I consider that any
alteration of it will detract from its force and
power.
On last night I took occasion to look at
several of the Constitutions of different States,
and I found in every one that I examined,
without a single exception, substantially the
very same article we halve in (his report,
without alteration or amendment, and but
slight difference in the phraseology. I will
read from some of them. I take the Consti-
tution of the State of Maine, as first occurring
in this volume. Article 2 of the Declaration
of Rights, in the Constitution of Maine, reads
thus;
"All power is inherent in the people; all
free governments are founded in their author-
ity, and instituted for their benfit; they
have, therefore, an unalienable and indefensi-
ble right to institute government and to
alter, reform or totally change the same,
when their safety and happiness require it."
1 turn to the Constitution of tire State of
Pennsylvania, and in the bill of rights there
1 find pretty much the same declaration, in
these wolds:
"That all power is inherent in the people,
and all free governments are founded on their
authority, and instituted for their peace,
safety and happiness: For the advancement
of those ends, they have, at all times, an un- |
